Claims for arbitration may not be barred by limitation where disputes involve mixed questions of fact and law, and both parties may present defenses to the arbitrator.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition for appointment of Arbitrator - Respondent's invocation of arbitration challenged on grounds of limitation - Court found that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and not barred - Appointments and directions made for arbitration process. (Paras 1, 8, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by the appellant for the appointment of an arbitrator concerning disputes arising from a work order for construction. The petitioner claimed unpaid dues, while the respondent challenged the petition citing limitation. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, appointed a retired judge as arbitrator, and permitted the respondent to raise its defenses, including issues concerning limitation, before the arbitrator. (Paras 13)

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the claims were barred by limitation, considering the timing of the arbitration invocation. (Paras 8, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the respondent's own claims create ambiguity regarding the bar of limitation. Hence, the appointment for arbitration was warranted. (Paras 11)

Result: Petition allowed. An arbitrator appointed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of arbitration process. (Para 1 , 8)
2. claim of unpaid dues and contract disputes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. appointment of arbitrator for dispute resolution. (Para 7 , 13 , 14)
4. limitation period for filing arbitration. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

1. A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator.

2. It is submitted in the petition that respondent sister concern M/s Caddilac Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. had invited tender for "Construction of Group Housing "KLJ Heights" at Sector-15, Village Kassar Bahadurgarh, Haryana". The petitioner was declared as successful bidder respondent had issued a letter of intent bearing ref.no. KLJ/CD/BGH/2009-10/01 on 02nd June, 2009 on total contractual amount of Rs.8,44,90,848/-. The work order no. KLJ/CD/BGH/2009-10/02 dated 09th June, 2009 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner which contains the terms and conditions oi this work. As per Clause 7 of the Work Order, the period of completion of work was 35 months from the date of work order. The defect liability period was 12 months from the date of handing over of the complete site in terms of clause 15 of work order. The petitioner has stated that there was initial delay in the execution of work due to the water logging and dewatering by the other agency. The work was revised from four Towers to seven Towers and was intimated through letter dated 07th May, 2010 by the respondent. Seven amendments were made in the original Agreement. The last amendment was made on 22nd August, 2013. The petitioner has submitted that it has received Rs.16,69,29,822/- towards the execution of the work, but the respondent has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.94,17,255/-. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.38,54,221/- which is the cost of material lying at the site which the respondent has not permitted the petitioner to remove. The petitioner had also not been allowed to execute further work by the respondent from October, 2013. However, the respondent has already passed the 38th and final bill of Rs.17,45,84,122/- on 16th September, 2014.

3. The petitioner has sent a letter dated 10th June, 2014 about the foreclosure of the Contract and also made a request for release of Final Bill amount, cost of materials, retention money and other amounts. The respondent gave its reply vide letter dated 27th September, 2014. The petitioner gave its response to the reply vide its letter dated 13th November, 2014. Even thereafter, several meetings have been held, though the Contract could not be finalized and the due amounts were not paid.

4. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 10th February, 2016 to which a reply was given by the respondent on 25th February, 2016 in indicating that all the Claims of the petitioner shall be settled after completion of work at Bahadurgarh and Faridabad.

5. It is claimed that even after the completion of work awarded to the petitioner at Bahadurgarh and Faridabad, the settlement of the amount has not been finalized.

6. The respondent sent a Notice dated 4th January, 2022 under Section 21 Arbitration & Conciliation Act illegally claiming Rs.3,02,31,934/- against the Work Order dated 09th June, 2009 awarded by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a reply dated 02nd February, 2022 which was responded to by the respondent dated 15th March, 2022 denying the claims of the petitioner.

7. It is asserted that disputes have arisen between the parties in respect of release of amount for the work done by the petitioner. The Work Order dated 09th June, 2009 contained Arbitration Clause No. 28 which provides for settlement of disputes through Arbitration. A prayer is, therefore made that a Sole Arbitrator may be appointed.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the Arbitration Clause for resolution of the disputes that may arise between the parties in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document